What's the next greatest rifle chambering?

[Wild Bill IV]

I think you've got to first look at what will sell well:
1) Not too much recoil - so less than 150gr
2) High BC - for weight that would mean 6.5mm or smaller calibre
3) 0.473 case head
4) Enough mass to perform at 1k
5) Case volume sufficient to push close to 3,000fps
6) Sensible barrel life/not too costly to shoot

To me that all points towards the new Sierra 131gr .25cal with about 45-50gr powder in a case of about 60gr H2O capacity (7x57) the shortened .284 6MMsteve suggests might do it?

I'm with you!!! Only probem here, it is not new!!! The original 257 Roberts was a necked down 7x57!!! The best improved Ackley design (most efficient) for bottlenecks was the 257 Roberts AI!!! 48gr of 4350 pushed a 125gr bullet at 3050fps with a 10" twist!!!!

BILL!!!

 

[Tangent]

I'm with you!!! Only probem here, it is not new!!! The original 257 Roberts was a necked down 7x57!!! The best improved Ackley design (most efficient) for bottlenecks was the 257 Roberts AI!!! 48gr of 4350 pushed a 125gr bullet at 3050fps with a 10" twist!!!!

BILL!!!

What's old is new again! I'll look that one up, a little before my time

 

[jackieschmidt]

I'm with you!!! Only probem here, it is not new!!! The original 257 Roberts was a necked down 7x57!!! The best improved Ackley design (most efficient) for bottlenecks was the 257 Roberts AI!!! 48gr of 4350 pushed a 125gr bullet at 3050fps with a 10" twist!!!!

BILL!!!

It seems the 7x57 case became the unwanted step child of the Arms industry, when in fact, it offers the ideal powder column for a whole host of wildcats.

I guess there isn’t much appeal in bringing out something “new” that is based on a cartridge designed in 1892

 

[Wild Bill IV]

It seems the 7x57 case became the unwanted step child of the Arms industry, when in fact, it offers the ideal powder column for a whole host of wildcats.

I guess there isn’t much appeal in bringing out something “new” that is based on a cartridge designed in 1892

The Swede is almost that old!! Like 1894!!!

That is the beauty of cartridge design!!! Little changing in one design can make big changes in pressure and MV!! What I foresee is a change in propellants!! That change will evolve into new revisions of old and new case design!!!!

I'm looking at a Short International AI!! A slightly shortened 22-250 AI necked to 6mm!! A Hot rod 6mm Creed!!!!! I have 501 New, unfired Nickel plated 22-250 cases I paid $65 over 25 Years ago!!! Will have an older rem 700 BDL SA to rebuild with!!! I can only neck ream for minimal neck chambering in order to keep the more durable nickel exterior finish!!! I'll have to dust them off first!!! SEE PIX!!!

Bill!!!

 

[CJ6]

The Swede is almost that old!! Like 1894!!!

That is the beauty of cartridge design!!! Little changing in one design can make big changes in pressure and MV!! What I foresee is a change in propellants!! That change will evolve into new revisions of old and new case design!!!!

I'm looking at a Short International AI!! A slightly shortened 22-250 AI necked to 6mm!! A Hot rod 6mm Creed!!!!! I have 501 New, unfired Nickel plated 22-250 cases I paid $65 over 25 Years ago!!! Will have an older rem 700 BDL SA to rebuild with!!! I can only neck ream for minimal neck chambering in order to keep the more durable nickel exterior finish!!! I'll have to dust them off first!!! SEE PIX!!!

Bill!!!

I never had good luck with nickel brass and an AI Chamber.

 

[Wild Bill IV]

I never had good luck with nickel brass and an AI Chamber.

Had a Rem 700, 7mm-08 BDL Varmint Special!! Used military 308 for testing, break in, and scope adjustments!!! Later, I bought Federal Premium Match 308 brass!! They were Nickel clad!!!! Necked them down and fire formed them!! While in the fire form stage, inside reamed the necks!!! This allowed for 2 thou neck clearance and minimum brass reforming!!! Worked up test loads for 160 SBT SGK, IMR 4064, and CCI BR2!!! The final loads were high 10s to low 20s MOA at touch!! Shooting 9in OD steel plates at 600 from prone bipod was easy!!! Golf Balls on the 200 meter berm were really fun!!!! Antelope at 450 and 600 went down hard with one shot kills (cold barrel)!! Infact, all of my testing and other shooting was cold barrel!!! IMR 4064 powder is really temperature sensitive!!! Great medium case capacity powder for cold barrel shooters!!!!

Bill!!!!!!!

 

[Laurie]

It seems the 7x57 case became the unwanted step child of the Arms industry, when in fact, it offers the ideal powder column for a whole host of wildcats.

I guess there isn’t much appeal in bringing out something “new” that is based on a cartridge designed in 1892

There are two problems with the 7X57 and all of this period's designs for the modern cartridge developer.

The first, and absolutely fundamental problem, is that they don't fit modern 'short' actions and magazines like the AI and MDT designs. Any rifle manufacturer producing a modern long action will only do so for much larger and higher performance magnum class chamberings. (Actually, the 7X57 and others are neither short nor long, but in-betweeners. When UK company BSA designed its own actions and rifles after WW2, it initially made them in three action lengths, including a 'medium' which was used for the 7X57. The importance of that cartridge in some markets in the 1950s was such that the first build of medium action BSA 'Hunter' models were 7mm Mausers not 308 Win, and they were produced before the company launched its long action version in 30-06 and 270 Win. The 'short action' was built around the 222 Rem and was also used for 22 Hornet, and later 223 Rem.)

Secondly, the cartridges were all saddled with modest maximum pressures when more recent post-war designs were moving up to the 60,000 psi mark, or even higher. Even though redesigned cartridges based on these cases could legitimately be higher pressure (as in 6mm Rem and the Roberts), manufacturers were likely discouraged by the fear of being smeared with the 'ancient, low-pressure' reputation.

 

[Wild Bill IV]

There are two problems with the 7X57 and all of this period's designs for the modern cartridge developer.

The first, and absolutely fundamental problem, is that they don't fit modern 'short' actions and magazines like the AI and MDT designs. Any rifle manufacturer producing a modern long action will only do so for much larger and higher performance magnum class chamberings. (Actually, the 7X57 and others are neither short nor long, but in-betweeners. When UK company BSA designed its own actions and rifles after WW2, it initially made them in three action lengths, including a 'medium' which was used for the 7X57. The importance of that cartridge in some markets in the 1950s was such that the first build of medium action BSA 'Hunter' models were 7mm Mausers not 308 Win, and they were produced before the company launched its long action version in 30-06 and 270 Win. The 'short action' was built around the 222 Rem and was also used for 22 Hornet, and later 223 Rem.)

Secondly, the cartridges were all saddled with modest maximum pressures when more recent post-war designs were moving up to the 60,000 psi mark, or even higher. Even though redesigned cartridges based on these cases could legitimately be higher pressure (as in 6mm Rem and the Roberts), manufacturers were likely discouraged by the fear of being smeared with the 'ancient, low-pressure' reputation.

You're research, knowledge, and philosophy are outstanding!!!!

Let me comment. Some modern day cartridges kept the medium/long action case cartridge lengths of the patent cartridges and were BEEFED-UP (redesigned) for the higher SAAMI modern day high pressure smokeless powders!!! Example: 6mm Rem parent cartridge was the old 7x57 and the 220 Swift parent cartridge was the old 6mm Lee Navy!!! The 257 Roberts (Medium action) is a modern day shortened wildcat of the 7x57 (Medium/Long action)!!!

The 30-06 Springfield (long action cartridge) was based on the military 1903 30-03 Springfield (1st military accepted smokeless rimless cartridge with the 30-40 Krag being the 1st 30 caliber to utilize smokeless powders) which shot a 220 grain Round nose bullet!! In 1906, the military accepted a much faster 150 grain bullet and shortened the neck (case OAL) of the 30-03 Springfield (making it a military WILDCAT) to accommodate the shorter new, at that time, Spitzer bullet!!! Thus, the MODEL 1903 Springfield Rifle was modified to MODEL 1903xxx SPRINGFIELD where x, xx, or xxx are the variant codes of those new models that accept the then new 30-06 Springfield round!! Even the 308 Winchester is a bloodline wildcat of the 30-03 Springfield in design!!!

The 22-250 Remington (short action) was a necked down wildcat of the 250 Savage (medium action) which was a shortened wildcat of the 30-06 Springfield (long action) which was a military wildcat of the 30-03 Springfield (long action)!! WHAT A BLOOD LINE OF ACCEPTED WILDCATS!!!!!

FOR ALL THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM THAT ARE INTO WILDCATS AND CARTRIDGE DESIGN, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING AND STUDYING PO ACKLEY BOOKS AND MANUALS!!! HE TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD DESIGN AND INTERNAL BALLISTICS BEING A PROFESSOR OF BALLISTIC SCIENCE AND WAS A MASTER GUNSMITH!!!

AFTER ALL, HE DESIGNED THE MINIMUM BODY TAPER, SHARP SHOULDER CONCEPT THAT IS STILL BEING USED TODAY!!!!

HIS CONCEPT OF UNDER BORE, OVER BORE, AND BORE ARE BASED ON BORE DIAMETER AND POWDER GAIN VS VELOCITY GAIN RATIOS AND HOW THE AFFECTS OF THOSE BORE/RATIOS ROUGHLY DETERMINE BARREL LIFE!!!! A GOOD EXAMPLE OF MAX BORE AND OVER BORE CONDITIONS IS 6.5-06 VS 6.5-06AI. INCREASING CASE CAPACITY FOR 4 GRAINS MORE POWDER AND GAIN 100F/S IN 6.5-06 AI (OVER BORE CONDITION) IS NOT NEARLY AS EFFICIENT AS A 1 GRAIN CHANGE IN THE 6.5-06 AND GAINING 30 TO 80 F/S (MAX BORE CONDITION)!!

FURTHER RESEARCH INTO HIS MANUALS PROVES THAT OVER BORE CONDITIONS EXIST IN 30-06 WILDCAT CASES BELOW 284 CALIBER AI WILDCAT!! THE 280AI IS AT MAX BORE CONDITION AND IS 4 TO 6 GRAINS MORE EFFICIENT THAN THE OVER BORE 7MM REMINGTON MAG!!!! THANK YOU NOSLER FOR MAKING THIS A SAAMI APPROVED ROUND!!

MY GOD, THIS MAN ALSO BLEW UP GUNS WITH DUPLEX LOADS IN BLAST PROOF CHAMBERS AT A MAJOR UNIVERSITY, ON CAMPUS MIND YOU, INTENTIONALLY FOR BALLISTICS RESEARCH!!!!

HAPPY READING!!!!!!!!!!
BILL!!!!!

 

[ebb]

When i first saw them, I thought the WSM and WSSM cartridges would soon be the only cases the manufacturers would bother to make, the rest would be obsolete. I thought about a 338 WSM elk rifle, then realized there was not enough difference from my 338 WIN mag to bother to change. Its still in the safe sitting on G waiting on O, and i can make or buy ammo for it, a 338WSM not so much. Did they fail because Winchester didn't have as good of snake oil guys as Hornaday? I guess what this whole thread is all about is, Will there be some earth changing new rifles in the years to come or just minor changes to an existing cartridge a new catchy name and a giant sales campaign?

 

[whatwind?]

When i first saw them, I thought the WSM and WSSM cartridges would soon be the only cases the manufacturers would bother to make, the rest would be obsolete. I thought about a 338 WSM elk rifle, then realized there was not enough difference from my 338 WIN mag to bother to change. Its still in the safe sitting on G waiting on O, and i can make or buy ammo for it, a 338WSM not so much. Did they fail because Winchester didn't have as good of snake oil guys as Hornaday? I guess what this whole thread is all about is, Will there be some earth changing new rifles in the years to come or just minor changes to an existing cartridge a new catchy name and a giant sales campaign?

358 WSM is the way to go and 7/300wsm is way to go

 

[IAm_Not_Lost]

Variety is the spice of life.

I think the 6mm ARC is going to slowly become the most popular alternative AR caliber and - in turn - become hugely popular as an uber light weight bolt action/mini action rifle.

Basically allows you to have a "do everything" semi-auto with mild recoil and in the form factor of a regular AR-15. Varmint, home defense, long range, deer, etc. I mean, you can make the argument it would even be sufficient for Elk at reasonable ranges if you really wanted to, but let's not start that.

Personally, I think that is where the trend is going, more efficient cartridge designs that are more versatile.

 

[Laurie]

When i first saw them, I thought the WSM and WSSM cartridges would soon be the only cases the manufacturers would bother to make, the rest would be obsolete. I thought about a 338 WSM elk rifle, then realized there was not enough difference from my 338 WIN mag to bother to change. Its still in the safe sitting on G waiting on O, and i can make or buy ammo for it, a 338WSM not so much. Did they fail because Winchester didn't have as good of snake oil guys as Hornaday? I guess what this whole thread is all about is, Will there be some earth changing new rifles in the years to come or just minor changes to an existing cartridge a new catchy name and a giant sales campaign?

You gave the answer in your post. You yourself didn't see a need to change from your existing 338 Win Mag. Given that 338 magnums comprise a small niche market segment compared to that for modest size 6.5s, the conclusion has to be that this product was almost bound to fail and that Winchester was whistling in the wind here, hoping that the 'modernity' of a short rimless case compared to a longer and belted case would somehow persuade people to switch to something not too different in performance.

I'd take issue with describing Hornady's people as 'snake oil boys'. Snake oil salesmen were travelling scamsters, basically crooks, selling things that didn't work (or in many cases were harmful/dangerous) through showmanship and fancy sales patter and moving on to the next bunch of credulous fools before the gulls discovered they'd been duped. You may believe that your fellow shooters including many on this forum are fools easily taken in by a bit of flash showmanship, (not to mention two fine US companies Sturm-Ruger and Savage Arms who were active collaborators in this project), and that's your prerogative, but I'd disagree. Hornady simply did the research, design, and introduction job properly and struck lucky in that the time for a well designed 6.5 had arrived.

 

[ebb]

I Am Not Lost, just what I said, the 6mm ARC is just a 6 Grendel with Hornaday on the base. There is not enough difference between the two to hardly tell them apart, without looking at the headstamp. Big marketing and hype to sell something that is not new, and not invented by them. I didn't understand why Alexander Arms was so protective of the Grendel, now I understand. He was right someone will steel your shit and say it was theirs.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I Am Not Lost, just what I said, the 6mm ARC is just a 6 Grendel with Hornaday on the base. There is not enough difference between the two to hardly tell them apart, without looking at the headstamp. Big marketing and hype to sell something that is not new, and not invented by them. I didn't understand why Alexander Arms was so protective of the Grendel, now I understand. He was right someone will steel your shit and say it was theirs.

I could tell ya stories. Any wonder that Hornady changed the dimensions of a 6 ARC vs a straight 6 Grendel...by just a little...but didn't bother to change the body dimensions of a 22 ARC vs grendel? Keep in mind, all along there was a guy named Whitley, an attorney of all things, who was already doing a 6mm AR and a 22 version as well as a 30 version, later...(actually my design). The ironic part is he wouldn't know how to turn on a lathe but he knew protecting intellectual property and his site went away between the time that Hornady worked around his protection of the 6 variant and not bothering to change anything with the 22 version. My 30 variant is at its best in the small IBS/NBRSA BR for score market, so not worth their time, I guess. But it does pack a wollop as a viable 30 cal ar15 option..fwiw.

Bottom line...Whitley's site went away after the 6 but before the 22 ARC that Hornady has done a wonderful job marketing...of someone else's idea and work. Simple as that. I've been involved with this whole Grendel thing since 2006. I worked with Alexander. Whitley took my idea and Hornady took his but it appears he got paid. This whole ARC thing is not new and a 6 ARC is essentially a 6PPC.

 

[Fuj]

Got home a little while ago, from tuning on a couple of pusher
dies. Anybody for a reinvention (with a few twists) of the .222
Remington ?? I thought I had at least one more wildcat in me.
Looks like two. May be calling JGS sooner then expected......

 

[ebb]

What you said was not what i think at all, I am perfectly able to do my own thinking and explaining. I am pretty sure that Dennis Demille did the leg work on the Creedmoor, and I am sure that Alexander Arms did the work on the Grendel. Now Hornaday has their name on the case that was designed by others, some would call it good business, I would call theft. They told us that the tips on bullets that had been selling for decades were melting in flight, and the new replacement had materials that cost much more and now the price of bullets is X2. Give me back my Amaxs, or refund my money for the defective bullets you sold me. Ill buy Grendel brass from Lapua, and I've owned several 260 Remingtons since Dennis De Mille was shooting a 6XC. I love Hornaday's excellent XTP pistol bullets and will continue to use them.

 

[CJ6]

If you could get "descent" 222 mag. brass an improved version would be cool.

 

[jackieschmidt]

I just remembered this from years ago on Benchrest.com.

The discussion centered around the pressure limitations on old cartridges. To be exact, could you load a 7x 57 to the same pressures in a modern rifle as a 308 Winchester. Many posted said that these cartridges were antiquated, they could never be fired at todays pressures. Even in modern firearms.

A shooter, now deceased, took a Federal 7x57 case and a Federal 308 case and split them lengthways. Laying them side by side, aside from the added length of the 7x57, the inside, from the case wall at the base to the thickness of the base, they were identical . .

Federal probably started with the exact same material, and up until the forming process reached the final trim to length and forming, the cases were identical.

This is why you can take a modern 7x57 case, (based on a case invented in 1892), neck it down to 6mm, Ackley Improve it, making it a 6mm Ackley, and shoot it at 58,000+psi.

 

[IAm_Not_Lost]

I Am Not Lost, just what I said, the 6mm ARC is just a 6 Grendel with Hornaday on the base. There is not enough difference between the two to hardly tell them apart, without looking at the headstamp. Big marketing and hype to sell something that is not new, and not invented by them. I didn't understand why Alexander Arms was so protective of the Grendel, now I understand. He was right someone will steel your shit and say it was theirs.

Yeah, honestly you could use the two as the same example. I have no doubt that Hornady largely ripped it off, but let’s be honest, you can say that about almost any round at this point.

I just happened to go with the 6mm ARC for my AR build with a match shorty barrel and I’m amazed at its accuracy and long range ability. I need to get into reloading for it.

 

[coldboreshot]

What happens in 2030?

Phase Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt range.